discussion about the regulatory structures the chairman mentioned that we have a lot of duplication. we are regulating and they were focusing on their part of the business, really not realizing that this could impact the other side of the business or the other regulator would need to monitor from that site. the question as to many streamlining or consolidation in the regulatory structure? you know, making sure the disclosures being made by companies, the companies follow the law. we feel like the sec needs to investigate whether the company was forthright about their financial position through this process, not only disclosing rtm's, but some disclosures they made in the last weeks and months of the company. obviously, the credit rating agencies are mentioned in this

report. we need a robust industry they are, we also know that while this company was rated at an investment rate, they really failed to record highs the significance of the positions they take emily until the very end, when basically it was too late. so one of the things that we hope remain from this report as we begin to get feedback, it is important for all of the stakeholders and there's a number of stakeholders that have potential solution to how we prevent this from happening in the future. we welcome those. there is no legislation from a recommendation in this report at this particular time because basically the purpose was to begin the discussion. so many times the government wants to run out and passing regulations. first we need to find a what

happened, all you industry an opportunity to bring forth what they think are solutions, to mourn for me the endgame will be to make whatever necessary changes, to make sure customers don't lose their money, that markets are fair and transparent and third, that we have the regulatory community structure for the markets. these have become very complex and they require very robust regulators and state-of-the-art regulators. if the current structure is at work and appropriately, we need to take a look at that. what that kind of outline was available it would be glad to take some questions. >> first, great kudos to chairman neugebauer and his staff who are absolutely outstanding and dedicated and

smart, wise public servants and they put together a remarkable forensic document in a sense the job of government is to provide an environment in which citizens can at their lives, knowing that they will not be subject to nefarious actions by others. in the case of the farmers and ranchers, the terrible stories, thousands of stories like this to chairman bachus describes. there was a failure at government to protect these people and the results of this investigation, fulfilling compasses obligation to provide oversight of us we had many opportunities to improve and provide better protection in these opportunities run the

gamut from following behavior of those who are in charge entities like mf global, to monitoring and modifying the ways in which the ratings agencies do their business, to their job. and there have been so many failures in so many ways, not only in mf global, but in other, similar stories in recent history. one common strand seems to be that we need to provide our regulators with better tools to pursue the enforcement of laws that existed prior to the massive imposition of dog crank. we do not have infinite resources and our financial marketplace. we do not have infinite resources to pursue every aspect

of what regulators might want to pursue in dodd-frank, but they need to be able to dedicate resources to better following the nature of transactions in this rapidly evolving marketplace into understanding how they can curb the excesses of human nature in the case of mr. corzine by a more effective monitoring, more transparent the and more coordination and consolidation so we can really have effective lien, streamlined regulatory structure that will consume the right amount of resource is, not too much come out of opportunity, although commerce and business to thrive and protect those who are most vulnerable. thank you again chairman and chairman bachus for your leadership over the years. >> thank you very much.

it's like to thank chairman spencer bachus for his leadership over the years and also my friend, subcommittee chairman, randy neugebauer or his work on this report and the sub committee. one of the things i came away with representing a district that has an enormous amount of agriculture from san antonio, texas all the way to el paso texas is the idea that farmers and ranchers, food producers, their funds to guarantee they can stay in business raising their crops and raising their livestock were not secure the way they should have been secured. yet what we had, as chairman neugebauer said his state agencies the power of the world to go out and regulate mf global and refuse to do so simply because of the aura of a previous politician that came into this business and really

did not show any kind of knowledge or ability to guide a company like mf global that was sick once i utility -- quantify utility and ensure that funds of the guarantees that they could stay another season or another planting season, but gave them a free pass and gave them more and more a rodeo for customers money. i'm glad that this report points out all of those defects because they need to start focusing on what is really wrong and be not afraid of what it is we discover in how our regulatory agencies function for the well-being of our economy, for the well-being of our streets and for the well-being of old versus the.

the thank you of the gentleman, very much. i encourage all of you to take a cop get this port and hopefully it will yield good legislation in the next congress. thank you. >> i haven't had a chance to read everything at the foot now, one of the central, critical questions about this was corzine's role to the failure of the firm. as you find any evidence that corzine and backed personally ordered or directed the transfer customer segregated funds? >> well, what we do know is that the same amount that operas to transfer funds and the wire transfer was to cover the overdraft at jpmorgan and they think it's sad heard mr. corzine. but we did learn about this company is that this company had terrible record keeping, poor internal controls and

mr. corzine manage the process of isolating what would be normal risk-management internal controls and basically using his position to basically ignore that. so we are somewhat any disarray they are. and of course if you read the report in the final days of the semester there. they would literally do things fun excel spreadsheet to find out where they were. >> is there any evidence that corzine kicked up the phone and told edith o'bryan to do this? >> you now, if you wake up one morning and there is snow on the ground and you look out your window and there are rabbit tracks, you may not see the

rabbit, but the tracks are a pretty strong indication that he rabbit has crossed the line during the night. and yet, there is circumstantial evidence that either john corzine either directed or knew about the idea that he was oblivious to this is certainly like the rabbit track, is a pretty good indication. so, whether the courts will find any criminal intent, not for me to say. you know, i think nan and quico

made important points. one, as congresswoman hayworth said you had all these regulators and they were not cooperating. one was that's not my part. one of the farmers that was a letter to look, i am tired of hearing from the cftc that this is an sec team. i'm tired of hearing this is somebody else's part of the pie. all i know is that money is missing in these regulators in the last two years have read under dodd-frank new rules. there's renewed regulators and there are 7000 pages of new regulation.

the one regulation, the most important regulation is don't take customer money -- to take money that doesn't belong with you in trade with it or use it. it's been on the books forever. that's the only regulation we needed. many say this this, capitalism cannot function without a moral and ethical basis. i can tell you that ethically and morally what went on here was strong. one reason we need to investigate this is this undermines people trusted capitalism and the market and behavior like this violates the trust that we have and the american people have in our government. the one thing we asked the government to do is protect us

from doing. now, as quico that, i represent these people. this money was not in a joint account with john corzine. it was a separate account. it wasn't a joint account and it was sensitive someone took your pension money and went to las vegas and gambled it away. that would be wrong and that is what happened here. it wasn't mf global's money. they have no right to use it. had they used it and had they made a profit on it, these farmers in ranchers with not have seen the prophet. it was only when they lost it. and, you know, quico says that

thing. if you missed everything else, he said this guy has the own war, the rep tatian is former senator. he was way well-connected. let me give you some evidence of that. when the cftc chairman was asked to calm and investigate this or take charge, he said i can't do that because we were friends on wall street. and i'm going to have recused myself. well, should we have someone that is a friend of someone and can't get alternate or does it feel like can be there or impartial? did not position? yeah, i was actually shocked when he said that. doesn't he know he came from austria?

is in t. know everybody on wall street? aren't there four or five companies that do 85% of the business on wall street? if people are here from those for, their friends out to be the american people, customers, not the folks on wall street. and we have a situation where people come from there and go. so that may raise a red flag. >> if you could talk about the democrats doing this report and why the democrats had signed out and also, chairman bachus, can you expand in which he said it beginning about fha. >> actually, i aired in that remark. it will be several billion dollars. this i think in their 60 year

history, this is the first time they've totally run out of money. they have $600 million as i understand that they are burning through within a month because the number of foreclosures have indicated they will have to come to the american people and ask for money. and, you know, we can get you those numbers. now we actually in a hearing this spring, we asked fha. we said it appears to us you're going to become insolvent within a matter of months. so this is no surprise and they said that they did not believe that was the case. of course, danny and friday, we found out that cinema that is supposed to be not a problem but they were bankrupt.

that is why this government doesn't need to operate any circumstance that when we had a downturn, thanks totally fall apart. that is why government should be like people. there should be a reserve. there should be money for a rainy day. and as you know, since 2008 will be banned if of a monsoon. >> i think the other question was about every document that we've got, i mean, they were able to have access to that. we sent them a draft or think about them to go and they sent them feed back. i think ranking member capuano yesterday said they had additional comments and we welcome those. as i said, the purpose of the document was to generate

discussion. if congress institute at, we welcome there and put. yes. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> well, as i said, i think what we said in this report is the regulatory structure has a lot of overlap. a lot of people regulate in this environment and we feel like not everybody is talking to each other. however, this report is going to have a large of discussion here people will disagree with the chronology. some will disagree with the

findings. but we hope is the solutions, because everybody recognizes the fact that the money went missing and that's a flawed and needed to fix that. so as the solutions come forward, some may not require congress to act. the industry itself may take the perp reactions. some may require beneath enabling legislation for the solution. if they do, we will bring that forward. yes, sir. >> you charge about how the answer is not a regulation that existing was better. he proposed several roles in the last several weeks about the scandal and also development -- >> well, one of the things that came out of that number one, don't use the alternative method. i think it's a good ting on their behalf. but we do hope is the regulatory community is doing a self-examination of coming in zero, this process as well.

we hope this will provide additional information. they should be doing a end our job is oversight is to make sure that is what they are doing. they can do it with rulemaking, that would be appropriate. one of the things we do want them to do this if they begin the rulemaking process is to make sure they do the cost-benefit analysis. in other words, this only happened once. what we don't want to do is make these market on accessible or inefficient for market participants because we all overreacted to this occurrence. i think we've identified with the pitfalls are, now we just need to take the steps necessary to fill the gaps and not try to do what we did in dodd-frank a perfect link it over everything. >> sir, have you referred the findings to the justice department? >> we will distribute this to

all relevant agencies. some have been given an advance copy, but everybody will have it. it's on the website. we hope some of the people using the so-called look at the report as well. >> and the formal process of referring these findings to the justice department are not? >> yeah, right. >> at the findings in this dereliction of duty, personally, how do you feel about mr. corzine's culpability? do you think he should be charged civilly, criminally, based on what you've learned? >> well, what we saw is mismanagement at its highest, i believe. mr. corzine i don't didn't understood the business he had taken over as ceo. he was trying to transform into some had not been in the past and when people disagreed with

him, he found other positions for him. he brought people and he felt like he could control i see 00 for chief operating service's former chief of staff. basically he was micromanaging this company. he was also chairman of the board and so we would've had normally some corporate governance from the board, before pretty much gave mr. corzine harbaugh to do what he wanted to do. so the question about whether it's criminal or negligence or port management skills, that is for someone else to determine. obviously, as we see in the report, we are pretty clear that we feel jon corzine was the primary culprit for the demise of mf global. [inaudible] >> well, in the at this particular point in time, like

he said, some of the agencies have their investigation going on. we didn't have access to all the records, so we didn't know where the cftc and they are in their recommend nations and their findings. we hope at some point in time they release their findings as well. we weren't on a witchhunt here. we were on a five-time family feel represented fairly pathetic some chronology of what happened and a little bit of why it happened and hopefully as i said this becomes a discussion document to move forward. yes, sir. >> chairman bachus noted the farmers and ranchers and in the report, do you think the users should be more confident or less confident going forward using this market? >> well, what we are hearing insert after some what we are hearing impact.

people have moved their businesses. they are taking a closer look at who they do business with and the counterparties and off the structure and that. what we don't want to do those have the government move in the business realm. we want to give the customers, farmers and ranchers and people who use those tools, the confidence that whoever they do business with is being overseen and that there are rules in place to protect their money. [inaudible] or should they be worried there could be others -- [inaudible] >> i think that's a very good question and probably at the essen of one reason for this investigation. one of the findings was this

farmer that i mentioned from texas, a 74-year-old with parkinson's that i consider myself an informed investor. and he said, i was looking. mf global was ranked very high. i had no indication. i read -- i checked out. i would not put my money with a firm had there been any warning what had there been any warning what had there been any warning what. so, your question is a question i think all americans ought to ask. when i put my money in an institution or do business with the financial concerns, how do i know i am being protected by you remember bernie madoff, there is a broker dealer and financial advisor. he had two different operations and a lot of people said,

where's my money? well, it was a financial adviser, was sent a broker dealer. what's the difference? my money is gone. what do you mean you are not in charge of the financial advisor. you are the the. you're in charge of the broker dealer. be creative or regulators regulators, more regulation. the fastest-growing professions in america is federal financial regulators. and that is not some republican talking point. in march, the bureau of labour statistics came out and said the fastest-growing occupation is financial regulators. 27%. a lot of new jobs.

all of these agencies are hiring. they are hiring hundreds and hundreds of employees, but the rules that have been on the books to prevent what it said three dead what it said three dead what it said three dead what it said three dead dodd-frank was supposed to end that, but it's complicated and the american people, you know, decide to be weak of called to us that it isn't forcing the law, not just creating laws upon laws and layers upon layers. the >> i'm told by the stafford got time for one more quick one and i'll let that be you. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> it has been more than a year at this point.

can any action be taken -- [inaudible] >> well, you think what you can realize is that there is a lot of documents that have been generated from this transaction and tried to limit everybody knew has been a difficult process for us. i'm told there's a number of investigations still under way. cftc, estes be my guess is fairly shortly we will begin to hear from that. there was a lot of transactions. this is a complex company, have a lot of different affiliates, a lot of operations as a global company. i think what everybody wants to make sure a visit they move forward with an action that they have come up with the proof in the documentation they need to do that. i thank everybody for coming today. again, i appreciate your interest in this. some of the committee staff that worked so hard in this report will be around if you have more detailed questions about that, they would be happy to do that.

thank you, have a good day. [inaudible conversations] ..

>> you back and he said the president is dead. and he said, what can i do for you? and he said harry, you are in trouble now. >> through his early life and his presidency, aida donald looks back at the life of president truman on "q&a." >> now a look at the lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual community. this is an hour and a half. >> hello, i have one rule tonight, i am a partner here in my job is to welcome you and thank you for coming today. several months ago, my good friend said, would you mind posting this panel? and i said sure. we are proud of the first real washington event, which was held in this very room five years

ago. we probably would thought we would have 35, maybe 50 people. maybe a couple of leaders thrown in, people that we want to get our mission thrown out too. little did i know, the electorate in what seemed to be in relentless march to deny us one aspect of our fundamental civil rights. we have lots and lots of things to talk about tonight. here i am, introducing my friend the executive director, and to thank him for his contribution to what i hope is a glorious new era for the lgbt community. without brads vision and passion and talent, we could never have executed this.

my dear friend who is on the council, rabble pick out his organizational chart and say how do i build a think tank to rival those of our foes and opponents. but how i do it in a real way and effectively? he is so passionate about real data. and also real legal principles. if we have real data, we've always conquer our foes. brad is passionate about that come in that has allowed the institute to be so successful in what they have done. and we have attracted leading scholars from all over the country and an incredibly successful way. over the years, we have watched

him with his organizational chart and he filled in all of these slots and we have arrived at where we are today. i think them very much for the contribution he has made. i turn it over to him. >> thank you so much, tom. [applause] >> i want to thank paul and tom. they were here right at the beginning and in this room and that has been extremely important. i also want to thank matt for together this great panel and organize everything. all the work in this great conversation that we have been having. throughout election we have hosted these postelection events. and it is always a little scary. before we know the results, were

not sure where the conversation may lead. but everyone is very brave. in 2000 and eight, we had a well attended event that was very bittersweet. in 2010, no one came. [laughter] so it's nice to have it this year. i am here to introduce the moderator, who is a fantastic moderator. peter, peter wallsten. i'm sure you have read about him in "the wall street journal." he writes for the l.a. times as well. in 2006, he co-authored a book called one-party nation. it was a book that was wonderful. peter is with us tonight to moderate the panel.

[applause] >> thank you very much. thank you for doing this. i realize that i was not always easy to find over the last few weeks when you're planning, but i think this will be an exciting event. and i think everybody knows that the panel is here. maybe we could go down the line and introduce everyone. and we can get started. >> sure, i am chad griffin, and president of the human rights campaign. >> i am nan hunter, a professor at georgetown and 80 scholar at the williams institute. >> i am gary gates, a scholar and a demographer at the williams institute. >> okay. so i thought that we could start off talking about the election results. everyone knows that it was a historic election.

the reelection of tammy baldwin, the reelection of the president. it was historic in regards to marriage equality. interested in going through the panel quickly, each of you talking about how youth felt that night or the next day. and what it all means for this movement and community. >> absolutely. once again, i want to thank you for hosting and helping us, peter wallsten. you have been at the forefront. and you for having us here. you know, usually when you're talking about an election, and you say afterwards, a new direction -- the turning point. it is usually a spin. the truth is, after this election, that is the only words you can use to describe as it relates to this movement. it really was a clean sweep across the country. i was cautiously optimistic that we were going to win some of

these. and day in and day out, talking about one of the 16 holes, they have the support of the marriage equality topic. the movement was really focused on winning a few of these. but instead, a we won many of him. is this going to be good, is

this going to be bad -- then we have the opponents saying that this was a doom and gloom scenario and we will follow the president's lead. that was also one of my pet projects, and many of you probably got my fundraising call for iowa. justice wiggins, the three judges on the iowa supreme court that were up in 2008 -- the national organization for marriage spent a million dollars to get the word out where they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, they campaign across the state, at bus trips across the state. written with some lawyers in the state and we partnered in the campaign.

i'm so proud of everyone to work together to achieve these massive victory. >> i would agree with basically what you have said. what i would add is that i have this blog. and what i blog about was the marriage results, this is what a tipping point looks like. it was interesting to me that in all four of the states, the percentage supporting gay marriage in minnesota, opposing an amendment, it was 52 or 53%, which is exactly what the other side got the pop a battle four years ago. so it felt to fell to me, in addition to all the polls -- it

feels to me that these four states, in part because they really did come from around the country, it said this achievable level, which i think is really an important and sort of magnificent kind of victory. i think that the other piece of that is that on this issue, and i think that this issue will come to be seen as representative more broadly of american politics, we are seeing a distinct separation between the regions that are more tolerant and those that are more supportive and progressive and the regions that are less so. the pew trust came out with a

full, you know, sort of tracking region by region what the results are in terms of this specific issue for things like same-sex marriage. so in the same way we are now accustomed to the red in the blue and that sort of stuff. this is not to say that there aren't a lot of space where there is plenty of support. i think the gay marriage is going to come to be seen increasingly not as the gay marriage issue. for this sort of, you know, this social issue or cultural issue. but an issue that is really telling us something, telling the country something about the direction the country is moving in and about the political divisions and where they live. >> i am the data geek on this panel. i have to say that -- i went

into this election, i had never believed this election, the presidential election, would be that close. i never believed that president obama was going to lose. so that he's actually was not a surprise to me. i was very confident going into the election. but historically, on the data side, with what chad was talking about on these various marriage votes, is that the polling had to show up not just as far as the majority does, but to show up at 56 and 57 to even think that we had a shot at voting. so i went into this very nervously about those votes. obviously, i was pleasantly surprised and i have to admit that i had a personal stake in this. i am one of these people that got married in canada in 2004. across the border, i wasn't

married, i lived in live in washington dc, i moved to california. i was married for a wild in california. then i moved to washington and i wasn't married again. now, i am about to be married again. [laughter] thank you. >> hopefully this same guy? [laughter] >> yes, we can't forget that. >> yes, you don't get gifts every time either. that's a problem. [laughter] so i did have this very -- i certainly had a personal stake in that. so i was very proud and 10 pleasantly surprised on that front. i also want to look at this deeper. but it feels to me like this time the disconnect between the voting was not as big as it had been in the past. suggesting that people were saying different things.

it feels like in this race, the polling suggested that that was kind of the margin and we won by a margin and we were fairly close to the polling. i think if that is true, it's very good news for us as we go forward with this kind of thing. i think there was a tendency for us to feel that we really had to get very high numbers. so that was good news in my world. >> the staff said one thing, but i live in boston, and there were romney headquarters, and my gut was something things. i didn't have a concession speech, unlike mitt romney, prepared for this event, as we thought through what this would be like depending on the scenario. i had a few reflections on election night. the first was remembering what it felt like in 2004 where you

had a dozen constitutional amendments passed in states all across the country. you had the new republican electoral majority, and you had a president who is reelected not because of, but within the toolkit of the issues, a dark moment, this position for the lgbt movement. i would like to say how proud i am about our resilience. we picked ourselves. we decided to fight and start talking to republicans. we decided to demand more from our democratic friends. a lot of movements that have stayed down and then victims for the next decade. like some people predicted. the sense of pride in our resilience and strength, the

second reflection is that on election night in 2008, i had spent time at that campaign headquarters for todd akin. i have watched young boys and girls cry about an election result is they were watching the president did an inspiring and motivational statement of victory. they felt that disconnect from the nations embrace of the new visionary president with young people seeing themselves on the ballot and having their own neighbors reject them. across the board, the country didn't put up with the issue of

lgbt writes. the bad news is i woke up with a hangover but with a healthier mind. we reelected the president. huge challenges. people still get fired for being lgbt. we still have health care being designed in many states that don't have all the things we need to make sure our families are prepared and have care. let's enjoy this moment. let's celebrate it and realize that there is lots of work ahead. he will be ready. >> you guys are setting the table. gary, continuing in your role as the data geek. talking about the polls and what to take away from the vote and

the influence. >> one of the great things about this election, the only thing we have known was the exit polls. this year, the gallup poll added a lgbt pulled to their daily tracking survey in june. they collected data on these preferences and they continue to. for me, one of the fun things that has happened in the movement, and i don't think this is just fun, i think it's serious, this question is not a permanent question on the gallup tracking survey. every night in america, 1000 people are asked if they are lesbian, bisexual, gay, or transgender. most of them had never been asked that question before. >> about 3.5% said yes.

the exit polling said that 5% said yes. so what that allows us to do is -- we have data from june until september. for the first time, we can start to look at regional and state levels. what i did was an analysis to see not just how the lgbt vote affected the national election, and certainly from the national feeler vote, it turns out that the lgbt support was about the same as the victory for romney. you can make the argument that it made a huge difference. but of course, that is not how you win the presidency in the united states. so what i found was very interesting. the same scenario for the

popular vote happen for ohio and florida. the support for obama is bigger in ohio and florida and his winning margin. so you can argue that that vote mattered a lot. if you think about an election where obama loses ohio and florida, you start to think about a very different election. so then i looked at one of mitt romney and obama -- the lgbt vote was 76 obama and 22 per mitt romney. quite frankly, it has been about that -- roughly three to one. quite frankly, it has been high all the way through. but what if they split it evenly or romney just got a little bit more? if mitt romney had 151% of the vote, he would've won ohio, florida, and virginia.

he would have been within four electoral votes of the presidency. in ohio and florida, all you have to do is win a little over one third of the lgbt vote win those states. while i don't think that that suggests that in the way we are now talking about immigration and things that republicans have to rethink their strategy about, i don't think it is quite that level of impact. but a little bit of movement in the lgbt vote in key states, in the selection, suggested it would've been a very different picture for the national election. what i am strongly saying is that it made a very important difference in the election in the majority of the electoral

college and it is a fairly modest movement in that vote to make the selection look really different. >> are any of you familiar with what kind of targeting the obama campaign did to the voters in those states? >> i don't know. i think we have all heard that the research shows what the voters. it's the same thing we have seen in other polling. marriage equality, for instance, it is a constant motivator. some of these voters -- what if,

given those characteristics -- if that happened, the lgbt vote should be about 56 to 44 for obama and romney. it that would suggest there is something about the lgbt thing that gives obama a 21-point lead.

>> [inaudible] when you start looking at elections and you start looking at the platform they currently have, you can imagine a more serious political discussion. and a desire to start going after and competing for that. a lot would have to change in that party for them to be able to do that. the other thing is that the elections are now showing that, you know, the thing with the republicans, they have lost the popular vote with the presidential election. it does seem to be that for them to win, they wind up having to win, they're going to win at all, they will win by pretty narrow margins. that's when the votes start to be important. once a close race. if it is 5% of the electorate, obviously come the race has to be within 5% or even a little western. in order to make that vote mattered.

for republicans, if they are margins of victory wind up being fairly small to your point, that could be important. >> this is completely counter to what the genuine thinking once. the fact that minnesota had this ballot measure on marriage would bring out so many social conservatives that would put the state over to romney. >> like the opposite. >> that's right, like the opposite. it is an entirely new calculation, the least in significant parts of the country. >> did you happen to look at the exit polls in wisconsin to see from the other direction in terms of non-lgbt voters? as far as tammy baldwin goes? >> the exit polling for lgbt lgbt.doesn't help much because you only get national stuff. i wound up looking at the gallup data. so the ones where could it

matter, which is ohio, florida, virginia and colorado. >> one thing i can add to that is that our firm had the privilege of helping general consultants. i know my business colleagues have talked about it. lgbt issues in wisconsin and other states, it is about the message that the president sent by being bold and what that says to independent voters, other progressive voters, and i think that part of our job, as we work through the challenges moving forward, how does a conversation happen. the fiscal cliff, what that will mean for senior citizens, i

think that we need to figure out a way where we do the math that shows why we are so important. and attach that is really great challenges and make sure that we are not just thinking about ourselves over the next 18 months. i am afraid that some of our friends and progressive partners cs a little bit too much, and i think it will be one of the challenges were movement in the days ahead. >> following up on that, i have written a lot about president obama and how he deals with being african-american and having been an african-american candidate. how did tammy baldwin deal with being a lesbian candidate? did it affect your strategy at all? >> it's amazing to watch. who would've thought. we kept thinking it was going to be an issue in the campaign. there are many of us in this room who have had disagreements,

the first ever high-profile race, it is such a credit to tammy baldwin, who is such an amazing person who earned the right to run on her record. also, to the other side. it wasn't always pretty. it was talk politics. when you look at the remarkable victories, we saw an exciting new list of congressional members. we are adding new day where we can run candidates for the u.s. senate, the battle is over and this is the first time that really cemented it. >> it would've worked? >> i think they deserve some level of decency. oftentimes, the public would use it in a very quiet way. we didn't see hardly any evidence of that in the cycle. but still, it will come back in

certain places. it is a credit to someone like tammy baldwin, who did her work. someone who is dignified, it means that we have elected senators and presidents eventually end that sexual orientation is not the primary issue in the campaign. >> so how did you turn that around? how did you and that? >> well, if you look, patrick and i were in that same hotel in san francisco on election night. you look at all that has happened in the movement in just the last four years. these campaigns and all the organizations in the movement have gotten very sophisticated. they came out of it with a sort of sugarcoated hate campaign. he used to come out of the very

direct and overt thing. all the advertisements they came at us during proposition eight, it will focus on schools instead of what was on the ballot and there was this, you know, a young woman running in, elementary school students staying at school i learned the prince to marry a princess and the princess can marry prince. that was kind of a surprise on the proposition eight campaign. perhaps it was not well prepared. we learned our lesson. we were ready this time. all four of those campaigns had brilliant campaign managers and they were ready. the moment they wind up with that, our site was up with a response to that. i think we've responded to the greatest argument that for the use day in and day out. we were ready for it and we responded. i also think the electorate in

those four years moved significantly towards our issues and they don't buy that. they don't buy that. we saw in the polling that when hearing that argument, voters don't buy it as much anymore. i was also add that we have seen coalitions among we've ever seen in the movement. he is not as coalitions at a press conference. these were partnerships with organizations like the naacp in maryland or if you look at other states, religious institutions, catholics for marriage equality in a number of states. our opposition has tried to dismiss these but if you look across the board, our opponents but three of those on the ballot. they forced it in minnesota and maryland and washington. they thought they could win them or they would not have spent the time and energy and money to put him on the ballot. but because of the coalition, what you saw was fair-minded legislators standing up, countering what they were

saying, and that's something we haven't seen has aggressively in the past. they are also simply losing support. this is much more exciting, with brian brown, who runs the organization -- the national organization for marriage. and he talks about how they were outspent this time. they have seen their support true. they are not going to go away. i agree with patrick, i think they could come back in a forceful way. but they have seen their support shrink and their grassroots support shrink and they have seen their donor base train. the mormon church as a player he did not see in this campaign. they were the dominant player and you also saw a a lot of the individual donors on that side, where is on the pro-quality side, you saw fair-minded people across the board standing up and campaigning for these initiatives on our side, and also digging deep in writing big

checks. [inaudible name] was the single largest personal contribution, contributed 2.5 million in the state of washington. so you look across the board and arm in arm with our allies. >> the blue state argument, it's true. it happened in the blue state. >> okay, the state of maine has two republican senators and a republican governor. i wouldn't call these liberal states. california -- it is a noticeable and sizable difference. there were many who thought the state of maryland would be a challenge. it's a very diverse day. our opposition, continually, you look at their statements and they thought that they had maryland blocked. washington state and maryland

and they thought that they had it there because they were a catholic state. but we found out is that the majority of catholics support marriage equality. for all the damages they thought they had, they no longer had. >> you know, it empowers them to move into conservative states -- is that what you're saying? >> i think that everything has to be smart and strategic. but right now we have to be smart and on the defensive. we have been winning in state legislatures across the country. winning in state and federal courts across the country. the playing field were ballot measures. in an arena where truth and facts rarely matter, they were winning. so for the first time on this one playing field where they have been banished, we are now on the offensive.

so when we have a scenario like that, our responsibility is to look at opportunities and not slow down. double down and head into her next victory. i am optimistic about opportunities across the board, from east coast to west the west coast and the number of things in between where we have real opportunities at the state legislative level. at the end of the day, this is going to be one in the courts, just as it has been in the past. we have to head in and get victories where we can. anywhere from looking at rhode island and delaware all the way to hawaii. a number of places in between. all of those are important.

just just because the state does not merit up for the vote, we are coming together and looking at the opportunities. >> i actually wonder whether they are second-guessing and forcing in the three states. in the past, they talked about running the table. it kind of felt like to me that the resources, they struggled with the other side -- the other side struggled with getting the resources across all four of the states in ways that hadn't happened in the. certainly, even those in favor of lgbt writes, i wonder whether they are debating whether that was a very good strategy to go after all of those at one time. so they have gone way closer than they have been. >> to be realistic, they are on the defensive, and they have gotten, you know, almost 40

states that have laws against marriage and we are on the offense a in terms of knocking off some of those. but they did run the table in 2004. they got constitutional amendments. in states where the natural strength is. you know, those are going to be the toughest states to dislodge. what happened this time is that seemed to me that our side was able to win in states that, you know, maybe not with lewis in the country, but they came in the middle somehow politically. and there was a high degree of regional variation. and i think that was part of the message. massachusetts, connecticut, new hampshire, it would've been a much less powerful message.

having said that, there is still a lot of states where chad points out, where there is no antidiscrimination laws. and that is an incredibly important, you know, issued to press forward on. >> patrick, do you have any other thoughts on future opportunities? >> i am most intrigued in states that he will don't expect us to move forward. one example being colorado where the republican leaders -- they are no longer retaining those leaders. another place is iowa. you have democrats losing control of the state senate. we would've been in the ground zero moment today in iowa trying to defend a path towards a

constitutional amendment if we had not held onto that. in new hampshire, we had a woman democratic governor and had that not happened, we would have been fighting underground in new hampshire today as well. right underneath the surface is emotional, powerful, other very important wins in a key of the delaware's colorado's, etc. those who don't overreach, they figure out the best time to reach equality. right at the same time, we are dealing with a supreme court that could be taking up one or two cases that could really be helped by the hard work of a few

more states. >> funny you mention the supreme court. let's talk about that. could you walk us through what might be coming up this this term and what the stakes are in the issues are? >> sure. there are three cases that are pending before the court, waiting to see the supreme court will grant review and hear arguments in the side during this term. it consists of the doma challenges. one of them is one of the court court is most likely to grant review in. all these courts have found federal statutes to be unconstitutional in the supreme court has to resolve that. that is what it does. if it doesn't do that, doesn't do anything. so i think there is a question about which case will be -- the

united states switched its position during the administration from defending doma to arguing that it's unconstitutional. and it has recommended to the courts that there are two cases, there are only two cases in which there has been a court of appeals. i think the windsor case is the more likely one in part because the justice department has recommended that. so i really think that that case will be -- that case will be heard. i will be extremely surprised if the supreme court does not grant review in a case. and that we do not get a decision on the constitutionality of doma. the other two things, the famous case, which shadows a little bit about, is the property case in

california. from a ninth circuit appeal, eight too one-vote, they struck down prop eight. the impact of that to affirm that opinion and prop eight would be unconstitutional. it is a big question what the court is going to do. there are arguments made that you don't have to review this case, you know? is about california. just let it be. let a ninth circuit decision to stay in place. there is also a possibility that they would grant review is in

one case, i think, and just hold the other two cases until the end of the term. i think certainly that is a strong possibility. the third case is a case from arizona from the ninth circuit. a good decision from the ninth circuit. ruling that arizona's law of taking away benefits from same-sex partners was unconstitutional. again, there is really a split in the circuits, there are a lot of reasons to say that you could just let that, you know, let that sleeping dog lie. that lower court opinion would take effect. and that would be -- i think that would be a very good outcome. but the court has, you know,

until yesterday, i think, they have scheduled the decision on whether to take the cases at the conference next tuesday, the 20th. and bumped it back to november 30, a friday. so somebody is either still trying to make up his or her mind, were trying to persuade somebody else to make up his or her mind. because the cases are all fully briefed. we are all pins and needles at this point, waiting for the courts to act. >> this is a fairly conservative supreme court heard what is your level of anxiety? these major issues that are so important to the future. >> well, while the cases are different. yet, there is an overarching name. it is an equal protection

analysis in each of the cases. so the court has to decide any of these cases, unless it goes off in the pop a case or something, and the big question, the blockbuster potential is for the court to articulate a new equal protection standard to perhaps either give heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation classification or to admit what they have been doing and saying that, we are not justifying this low-level deferential rational basis standard. we are really looking at this classification with stringency. because, if, in fact, is being used in ways that is just saturated with bias and has no relationship to the legitimacy of the programs we are talking about. so that is the big question.

will they reach that point in whatever case they take? >> which one of these conservatives would go that direction, do you think? >> don't hold me to it any of this. [laughter] >> that's what i'm saying. i think the strongest likelihood for a good decision in terms of striking down a discriminatory classification is in the doma case or whichever doma case they take. for all kinds of reasons. it is an extraordinary thing that the federal government, while it accepts the state government definition for marriage and every other kind of

marriage, including common-law marriages or other marriages, where there are some differences, is the one category that gets singled out for deferential treatment. that set that up for justice kennedy and his rome or philosophy. so that is my most hopeful expectation. >> was there a risk in bringing these issues to the court? >> we are on the right side of the issue, we have 12 days of brilliance that chief judge walker oversaw.

truth and facts are the only thing that matter, unlike a political campaign, where this expert witness the so-called honor of it. truth, or should i say equality, they tend to win the day. you see this across the board. if you look at all of these victories, not just the prop eight but the doma,, many of them were appointed by republicans. some were appointed by democrats. at the end of the day, it is so clear where the country is headed on this issue. as we have on so many other civil rights issues. when the supreme court ruled in virginia, that was a unanimous decision. if you look at legacies, one can either go about this order i get to say all these things as a

nonlawyer on the panel. spending the last two years of my life with really smart lawyers that i learned from, i'm incredibly optimistic that we would not have filed the property case and the brilliant lawyers and legal organizations. i think it is a mistake to write off any justice, i'm optimistic. >> if anyone is capable of it, tammy baldwin us. we have learned around the

country that even in some of the toughest states of the toughest debates, whenever lgbt mertens, the language and tone and debate, we have found -- they will think twice about what they say about us. it is almost as important. i think we have a full group of democratic senators and some allies in the republican side who look at this issue completely differently. when you connect leaders with old allies, i really do think

that considering redistricting and how tough it will be for democrats to take takeover. we have to be careful about not overrunning. [inaudible] i think is a movement we need to do some soul-searching in the next two months while we try to get some big things done had we stopped talking about things that matter --

even if we did win, bringing the public with us. we have learned from a lot of other social movement. you have to do the hard work in tough places. so that we aren't fighting this battle a quarter century from now. in washington i think it will be tough to pass any big bill. i do think under chest leadership and vision, there is a chance to have a conversation with republicans about things like this in nondiscrimination. >> who are the target republicans? who is out there? >> you know, this sounds crazy, but i think that we are looking at what this issue means and i have seen data --

>> chat has become a friend and hero in a compound. the other example that i would use is david blankenhorn. he was the star witness. he was the witness the opposition used, the key witness throughout the case.

he did a lot of soul-searching after that trial. quite frankly, he went through an evolution of his own. evolution is what some lgbt people went through. i completely agree with patrick. the lesson is whether it is your family, a collie, someone in your church, having them be open to you about being lgbt. >> i just want to point out that we have also elected bisexual people. demographically the split is half and half. it is actually a good thing for

the movement to have an openly bisexual legislator at the federal level and hopefully we will get the transgender in there and soon enough. >> ener1 ascot. that is another -- within the lgbt movement, to have that, don't you need to have a plan? i'm not hearing any names of republican lawmakers that you are singh would be good. what kind of strategy are going to have that? >> i will speak briefly about that. until we get into this next election, we will have some small opportunities in the lame duck -- but it is still the same, and some are still unwilling to move.

my hope is that the lesson and the message that came out of these elections will, in fact, open up the door to have these conversations. there have been people who have been helping to open those stories. over these last few years, opening doors and advocating and contributing money. paul singer, one of the biggest donors to the republican party of the finance chair of mitt romney, one of the single greatest winterfest on the issue of marriage equality specifically. that helped us open those doors. we have to see what the opportunities are. senator susan collins has been

tremendous. you know, without her support, we wouldn't have had the victories that we have had. my hope is that we will have a lot more that follow her lead. >> what about the democrats? the vast majority of people supported it. it is outrageous that we have had some elected officials who have not allowed this to go forward. reparations are ahead of congress. many companies have moved forward and have inclusive practices. more than half the states in this country, you can be fired simply for being lgbt. it is outrageous.

those who are unwilling to move forward, it is such a simple concept. the most american of values. ..

trying to be recognized and have children and don't have health care and your watching the affordable care of, probably more important than harry reid is doing an antidote is a way to access your sustainable health care for your family the course of 10 years. the bread-and-butter issue that really impacts families. on a more global level, secretary clinton's leadership in making lgbt human rights in brothers and sisters who fear of persecution to death, that's a big deal for human beings and as we think of our so-called gay agenda, winning is really big, but we have to step back a bit and go, not everybody is as fortunate as this one. we have an obligation to look on the local level, state-level

globally and the movement has an obligation to speak to that. >> i want to add one thing about employment discrimination. but such an incredibly important issue and that is the avenue that doesn't take us all the way, but the, but the advent of a federal executive order of president obama could and should sign that would cover federal contractors so that if a business wants to be part of its income from the federal government, it should be willing to agree to not discriminate. in fact, the majority of federal contractors are to have those policies, but the extension to all federal contractors would ask and antidiscrimination coverage to millions of people who don't have it now. and you know, there are mechanisms to the agency as well. in fact, the courts have

repeatedly found that gender identity coverage especially is covered under title vii. the eeoc in the past year issued a decision, you know, sort of affirming up regards to gender identity. there are other arguments there and available in other ways to move. we need congressional action because unless you have a definitive supreme court decision or an act of congress command that you can can be sure. employment discrimination is such a fundamental thing people need to be from. i think we have be sure. there are other avenues as well. >> what patrick was saying about some of these other issues. same-sex couples with children are economically disadvantaged. the less likely to have health insurance, more likely to be racial nothing minorities and

places they have no protections whatsoever. they are much more common in the south and midwest than they are renewing and the list goes. so those issues are back lgbt issues. one of the great things about in the last decade at getting this better data is able to show this diversity within the lgbt community that in fact these issues are simply someone else's phone. >> patcher, on the affordable correct, is that some in the white house can help with? did they have the ability to put pressure on states of mind issue? >> secretary sebelius has been a tremendous friend to her community when she laid out the regulations for implementation of the affordable care act, really laid us and brought and bold headline that basically said do not discriminate to lgbt families. there's a lot of work to be done there and a lot of work to be

done by great partners at the center for american progress and other groups that are doing really smart work. again, part of that is the republican administration service and at times embedding some anti-gay players sent to agencies for their passing regulations and doing things that impacted us for a generation. the obama administration has used it very little credit for adding thoughtful people who are open-minded, who were bunch of conversations with us and release a couple adjectives and one roof regulation can change people's lives forever and for generation of lgbt people. progress the administration will be demands for not only the hills, or continuing agency work with whatever shout out to you, data collection.

if at the end of the second bomb at frustration our families are counted across all of the agencies, there will change her ability to access resources. it will discrimination in so many ways and i think, we have to make sure we don't lose sight of those. >> another big thing in terms of some of the regulatory changes have been the impact on the community, which is difficult to get attention in the legislative and judicial framework. and you know, the ability to get a passport is a very basic thing that there's been to your point relatively minor tweaking the regulations than just some good that people who knew how to do that. it has made a pretty big difference in people's lives.

>> the scanner consists of us to the next topic, which is let's talk about the president and what you all expect in a second term. nan company bought up the executive order. other tears shed in all of you talk about budget and a sign that and what is the white house telling you about when that's going hot? he could do it right now if he wants. >> there is no question that is something this president could and should do as nan site appeared regurgitate, considered it. the president deserves tremendous credit for all the progress we have the first turn and now it's time to turn to the second term now that he is real but did notice top of her office to something he can do without an act of congress. important to note that is not the end solution here, but it's a really important step towards that goal. there's precedents from the civil rights movement and we will continue to urge this president to do that. i don't know the timing and if i

have got a prison or be a front-page story for you tomorrow. but i think as a whole and all of us in the community they care so much about that will push for that. there's a number of other things that in the first turn, the cabinet has increasingly looked like america in its diversity come including an increase in historic number across the board from her federal judges to brothers schedule c. appointments. but it is my hope that we can have our first openly lgbt cabinet member. plenty of folks are qualified for that and a small ambassador appointments i think it's time we have a g8 20 openly lgbt ambassador. so there are advancements this president can still make on behalf of equality that don't require a congressional movement. there's a number of other things we need congress to move while

we have a president who will find this in many of those are what talk about. >> who have some of the folks at mighty cabinet officials? >> i will stop short of going through this to folks because the ink we could all as one presidential candidate once said, -underscore. i would suspect that everyone in this room has a binder or too full of qualified candidates, both here in d.c. around the country for any level of appointments. >> what signals are you getting that they will appoint featuring seven cabinet member? >> i've absolutely no confirmation sister who was appointed where or when opening so come about by the way. i do believe there will be openings and i am confident are qualified lgbt candidate. >> on the executive order, can you describe what the white house hesitation is that i'm not?

>> i don't know. they make clear while i was still in california that they were not moving forward right away on not and i don't know why, but it is my hope that they will. there is a long push encouraging the president and others to ultimately come out in favor of marriage equality in the president said he was on the abolition on that and i took another out of of macquarie and the. i am not to mistake that he will ultimately issue that executive order because it's the right thing to do, the timing of which i don't know. >> kerry, and patcher touched on this a few minutes ago, but are there the changes we connect like in the way that the census counts families? what else are you hearing about? >> i think that the issue of data asaba gotten quite a bit of attention. the first administration and quite frankly thanks to some of

the movement leadership groups really calling for better data collection. i think there is a chance -- i'm not necessarily saying we are going to get a gender identity question on expenses, but i think we'll get more routine federal surveys asking questions. a big issue at be to get the national institute of health. one of the ways we made enormous headway in getting better research on racial minorities and women was when you apply for federal research you had to explain if you are going to study racial ethnic authorities are women you had to explain why every single time no matter what. one of the institute to call for better data collection was to get nih to say if you submit a research proposal and you're not going to study sexual

orientation you have to explain why not. and i think that is an achievable goal and a relatively short timeframe. as i said, there are several big surveys that were about to get sexual orientation on the interview survey thanks to secretary sebelius and i think there are some -- that's the biggest health survey in the country. so the other piece i would say is the census bureau is the removing towards better ways to both count same-sex couples and families the tools to and civil unions because right now there is no federal data at all and particularly if doma would be a statistic agency fontanelle and quite frankly, that's when you get attention is this some

federal agency says we want to know that. and if we get elements of the health care loan that have specific impact, that helps the air combat for better data. >> widmer thing is that the biggest issues that don't have lgbt in the title matters significantly. immigration reform is about us and our families apart as. debate about the fiscal cliff. if we don't figure a sensible way to resolve the impact on families across the country, talked about demographics and we don't want to get ahead of ourselves and they would jump at respect just about us, but i think the great challenge of the next couple years am i to put the country is facing is how do we combat ourselves in each of those debates such as smart, strategic and possible? how to use the process to build tighter relationships with progressive friends who got her back for so long so they see us fighting for them, not just asking something for us. and how in the context of the

partisan solutions to reuse the relationships and conversations with republican through that process to get to a place that they are with us over the course of the next three to five years. a slightly different way to look at the movements were. >> i'm hesitant to bring up the pentagon in this particular news cycle, but "don't ask, don't tell," it was historic that was passed in eufaula is not removed from our books, but we still have to remember that our men and women who fight in the this country's total have equal benefits. if so why long ways to go as it relates to equal benefits and issues of i.d. cards and base housing partnership in the face and a whole host of big that is important progress we still need to make as well as service and the something that is not even a discussion, but something important and needs to be

addressed. i say that because all the things we talk about. we talk about politics on them or send victories and not so many losses this time. but at the end of the day, they are real life people. it's not often you can pass a law that is actually real life people immediately impact getting killed. right now in this country come the best majority people live in places where they are treated as second-class citizens in a young person growing in america today, if you look at the three places or people spend most of their time, home school and church reject it at all three and in some cases at the kitchen table in some cases at school and some hearing hate in the pulpit. advances in sacrifice and telling people they can grow but hopes and dreams and aspirations as their peers can. these laws and administrative action and successes really matter to real live people and

it's felt in this country and it's important we'll come back to that because it's so easy to get lost in vote counts and results from elections. but she don't often have the privilege of working on issues that your successor failure impacts in actual life and this is one of those. >> i think we might have time for audience questions. i'm not sure what the time is, but if there's somebody that could help me actually, my eyesight is terrible so i can see somebody's hand is raised. if someone can help: people. >> i am a retired federal government employee and in addition to the pentagon, all of those other federal agencies are affected by same-sex partner benefits. i wish after 25 years of service coming between tiers in afghanistan that my partner could have my benefit.

we need them. it is a basic, basic need. what can we expect from the administration now and from hrc? >> first of all, you telling your story just like that is something we didn't talk about how we win these battles. it's a shame that it took us a while to learn the lessons that harvey milk taught us by telling our stories, people listen and people increasingly come about and supporters. the story you just sit up and told him people like you telling that story across this country in states and here this town were oftentimes in this town especially the real-life human impact is often forgotten because politics dominates in the ins and outs of the process dominates. that is why i was referencing before he spoke but it's the

perfect follow-up of two real-life committed couples. it is outrageous in this country, perhaps in other countries you can imagine, but in this country we would treat our services in such an unequal with an impacts their lives. we will keep fighting day in and day out aggressively because i often talk about time matters. time actually matters on these rings. when we file the property case and there is a bit of delay because of this roundabout way in which the california supreme court in the 12 months to answer your question, we launched along with other groups italicize can we through. other through children through on these rings and he expressed that he couldn't wait because he wanted to get married. his partner had just been diagnosed with alzheimer's than he wanted to get married where they could still remember the occasion. on the day we finally had our

hearing that the ninth circuit court of appeals from his partner passed away the night before. so they will never know that rate. one without the property case, chris and sandy can delete items from other two boys, spencer and elliott twins purchase entering high school. her mom still are. , so we have to tell this human story as often as possible because that's what america cares about them we have to be smart and strategic advocate the strict curries as fast as we can, but always remembering why we fight and i can't be more eloquent that you just wear. >> you talked about coalitions for the works i was stunned this election season. how do you see our role as lgbt people and working on other issues of oppression and were

d.c. that needs to play out? they take those benefits but don't always get them back. >> you're absolutely right. the something patrick was talking about there. it's important if you look at this fiscal clip we'll talk about, sequestration we don't come through sensible resolution here, all people, including lgbt people. it's often silly when you have discussions as though lgbt people are part of the community impacted by health care or impact by cuts in medical care, particularly care for hiv and aids patients. so i think we have to increasingly work together in coalitions and partnerships or we can come together. we don't have to agree on everything, but finding commonalities where we agree and working together is incredible what we achieved what we do so.

as a movement we have to challenge ourselves to do more than not. >> patrick, follow and not, talk about which you see as the way this community can work with the other group rates committee on immigration as an example. >> it is an issue not going away and there will be some action, but for the next 10 to 15 years is one that will be part of the american political landscape. the good news is, it's nice to say something nice about you while you are here, but there's kind of a new generation of lgbt leadership that looks at the way we do our business differently and we are starting to reflect overseeing our community; our leaders to say if you want to play a role in immigration conversation, this is how we do it and i think we need to see that across the line. you look at the attack on women and controversy in the last two years on women's issues.

you look at some of the outrageous language from the fact we talk about contraception is hard to imagine. that didn't go away because a couple candidates lost in a few states. there's something there that is very real and our movement hasn't always been a good job of understanding the intersection and the way we do our work and issues we talked about. so i think it is a challenge for folks like chat and other leaders our movement to get the broad movement counts on how to engage. the one thing i can tell you for sure is there will be a never-ending number of opportunities in light of the way the country is about to face really big, big complex issues after this election and we are not today know exactly how to do it, but there'll be opportunities. >> another's faith communities come but hrc have pretty big

progressive operations to try to work within and with the faith communities and i think that it's been fairly fruitful, pretty fruitful partnerships. [inaudible] >> i agree with you entirely that a mark of next year full text we haven't taken any good many years and makes sense. when peter asked a question can you stop short of saying a full vote on the senate would be a good thing and something harry reid promised years ago. they could do it, they are sort choosing not to. that allows her opponent by forcing a vote would force them out of the bill. it is on the wrong side of history and the american public good might have pushed for that as well take a nap though, even

if we get 57, 50, 59 votes, let them filibuster. >> education is what you said. all of these things take work and it's very easy to say let's move forward and get a vote on this or that. i am for doing where we know we have a plan to win and we have the votes to win. if that is today, let's move forward. i do think we have to be smart because we are asking for a lot. he listened to all the things we talked about. we want the things we want to know. where can we get our next advancements in how quickly can you get the clicks are not looking to set up ourselves for losses because i think we need to continue the momentum. the reason they won us because we were smart and strategic in the way we played and we won all four. that goes for a number of other accomplishments we talk about. i am for an inclusive, fully

inclusive workplace protection coming out of this congress as soon as we can get it. >> you in the front right here. >> okay, so like a lot of people here i'm sure i'd donate on a regular basis, but the arguments that give me to donate are the ones where there is a close race. as we feel more and more the wind at our back, how will that affect funding and the real push for lgbt writes? >> we do have to have a reality check and be realistic in terms of where we are. before tuesday night basic states and the district of colombia. today we have nine out of 50 states and the district of columbia. so yes, momentum is on our side, but we have a long ways to go. i'm certain will have setbacks along the way.

we are rolling back things like write on omaha, nebraska we have an inclusive work place in oman. the opposition is going forward attempting to roll that back. you'll continue to see us in some places having to continue to be on the offensive -- i'm sorry on the offensive. we have to remember that trees were 52, 48 and without this incredible support from our members, from small dollar donors with the hard to achieve basic therese. while i look forward to the day we can hide into some of these, i don't think any of us on this panel see any of these as easy collides. they are all hardware can require significant resources and time and energy across the board. >> i think your press release that is a $20 million came in. is that going to be a baseline? >> i don't know. i've been here five months. i will tell you that is

contributed and raised. i was proud to have been on the national finance committee for the president is so smooth and half a dozen hrc members somewhat were able to contribute with partners that emily's list. and candy priorities endorsed 283 candidates this cycle and we did well in the vast majority of them and we certainly had some losses here and there, particularly with moderate republicans that didn't win. judy baker at being an example. we also put $5.5 million this cycle in the four states. i came in in june and went to my darndest to direct descendent resources in all surveys outside the building. more people perhaps i missed practice under the dollars contribution insert before people he took a trip i will

continue sec in his months on the job to be as aggressive as they can be. this is our moment and we have to keep fighting in order to induce the therese because the stakes are too high and the consequences of losses or sit if you can't. >> this was touched on earlier, but if they doma is decided in our favor and if i have come and 41 states that nurture quality, what you say to the opposition's argument this will become the next abortion and will be dividing countries for years from now? >> well, the supreme court strikes down section three of doma. it does many effect any state law.

it affects whether the federal government rest recognized a marriage recognized in a state. that means couples to marry in massachusetts are your brothers stayed, whether those marriages will be recognized by the federal government. it doesn't do anything vis-à-vis state. it doesn't do anything to four states that don't recognize same-sex marriages to take that step. it only means that the federal government's policy has to be to recognize the marriages that any given state recognizes. so i don't think it will prompt a backlash because it is limited amount way in the cases were framed very clearly said they involve things like social security or federal employee benefits or federal income tax

or other issues specific to federal law. i do think however that a lot of examples that have come up whether it's federal employees or the federal cara or immigration or any number of other issues that the supreme court has struck down just that section of trained tent, it will have many ripple effects. i mean, he sprinted away limited to policy, but we know it circulates throughout the areas of low in many areas of our lives. so you know, it is important to remember that the doma cases are targeted at a specific aspect of discrimination. but i else if it's bad if we went in one of those cases that the ramifications will be quite

broad. not in the sense states will be forced to change their laws about marriage, but in the sense that if individuals to want to choose to marry, the ramifications would be quite extensive and areas to fix health insurance exchanges. it's going to affect immigration law significantly. >> one more thing to be optimistic coming up with the nuance we should worry about is the most powerful case for marriage is marriage itself and it would have been our side. but there was a court case in massachusetts or per month away from civil unions to marriage or ubiquitously to the true new york, regardless of the root of a quality, the moment your neighbor saw your marriage and the locus and play didn't shut

the next day, all of a sudden if you look at demographics and polling company bringing a whole whole new segment of people. i'm hopeful whether it's too dramatic the wind was 10 my big wins on the state level in the next 12 months, every victory comes saddled with backlash, but a tremendous amount of energy embrace because they see their neighbors and it's okay. it's a very hopeful sign for us. >> areas the numbers guru genius but i don't think there's 70 members have backed that up. if you look at the demographic data for marriage equality in the age break downs and attract to read ahead, it's to call to make the case but we'll see anything but continued movement. the question is the peace of the movement. >> to that data, what is surprising just how big the differences between young and old. i never completely agree that

people's attitudes about 25 will be the same in their 50s. but the margins are just so large that i think is right. >> anita for a minute but changes in the african-american commute due to an issue because that was one area the african-american church in california mobilized in 2008 and didn't seem to come to fruition this time. >> the evidence suggested ireland where you did have a sizable african-american community in the electorate that best it was kind of a 50/50 proposition and clearly in the past had done not necessarily that close. in general in minority communities one thing to remember in this country as they are younger and morphine or else. both of these things favor particularly marriage.

women are genetically -- substantially more likely to support marriage equality than in an younger people likely. the team escape these fairly consistent polling of majority support for marriage equality. part of that is purely demographic phenomenon. i think that also is starting to be true in the african-american community as well. relative to the white population , everyone in this country followed that basic demographic. >> we have time for one more question. >> my question is more along the lines of what strategies as you think helped respond to the attempt to divide the state of maryland the african-american versus lgbt divide?

>> one comments i make as as i was on a panel yesterday with darlene nipper and she taught about obviously a lot of engagement with african-american pastors, many of whom were not going to come out in support of this, but the conversation happened and what everyone has been saying, like it doesn't always mean you get to support her, but she began to get several conversations about the issue in her argument is that it's one of the things that happened in maryland. >> that's right, but also his 27% was the african-american turnout in maryland and a significant movement in this because ben jealous of the naacp stood up and was a partner with us in that camp pain from a full

partner. reverend doman tows camorra the biggest african-american mega-church ministers in maryland was not just on our side, but was came painting day in and day out and talking to some congregations and talking to folks across the state on this issue. >> the picture, at least at sterling is correct, the picture and most of the literature with michelle obama, but her support was clearly used in the campaign. >> yeah, a combination of those things has missed this sort of >> and spanish in the panel. it was a great discussion. [applause] >> thanks, everyone for coming. good night.

>> at the last nearly half-century to the discussion of the assassination has been dominated by two schools of

thought or if you will two faiths. i'm going to very briefly describe each of them and how they approach the evidence in the case. to begin with, there's the church of the loan assassin whose adherents insist both oswald and ruby were essentially loathe dot's who murdered john kennedy and lee harvey oswald respectively for their own personal reasons. on the other side with the church of the grand conspirators and their adherents frequently rather bake about exactly what they think could happen and who is responsible, but they are to be convinced there was a large conspiracy conviction involving figures within u.s. government and a massive cover-up.

>> chairman of the president solus connell says the u.s. will not follow up the so-called fiscal cliff. alan krueger was at the economic club of washington to talk about the economy and job creation. this is 40 minutes. >> so, we are very pleased today to the chairman of the president's council of economic advisers with us, alan krueger. he is a native new jersey, went to undergrad at cornell where he was not only top of his class about a high jumper on the track team. then went to harvard to get his phd in economics in his thesis advisor was none other than larry summers. he has an academic career and is now pinning a professor at princeton, teaching economics, but it's not a second tour of duty in a bomb administration,

beginning a few bomb administration served as assistant secretary of economic affairs at treasury and then went back to princeton and was lured back to the president to become the chairman of the council of economic visitors and assumed about a year ago confirmed in november of 2011. so we are pleased to have the year, alan. so everybody wants to know what they. are we going to fall for fiscal cliff or not? was the answer? >> the answer is that we shouldn't. these are solvable problems. we are working away at them. the president yesterday met with business leaders to discuss end-of-the-year issues. also other issues that can turn. the day before he met with labor leaders and the presidents of broached has been clear all along. he's looking for a balanced solution, a solution out in

terms of raising additional revenue, raised from the top 2% of income earners in the u.s., on show which reduces spending. so the president's position has been clear. these are solvable problems. we have it within our capacity. it's a matter of political will. >> let's talk about the process to put in context. how much revenue is the president went to pick up over the next 10 years? foti lake is a solution in the lame-duck session? how much revenue as he trained to pick up? >> what i would point people to is the presidents budget. the president's budget is $1.5 trillion of additional revenue over the ten-year budget window can also step back and see the goal of the presidents budget. but the u.s. unsustainable

fiscal path and put us in a position weren't that is not rising relative to size of the economy as well as support in the short run to make port investments we need to make so we remain the most competitive nation on earth. >> right now the president talks about marginal rates going up for the upper 2% and people who make 250 or above for the upper 2%. the tape and marginal rate from 35 to 39.6. disney also want to have reduction limitations or is he just happy to get the increase in marginal rates? >> would like to see a tax code that is more rare, were fishing. the president laid that out in his budget. what the president has laid out is an increase but where they were in the clinton years which is a no are very successful years for the economy as well as

a broader base which most economists would agree is a way of having a more efficient tax code. >> the capital gains rate is up 15%. is that an essential part he's negotiating now? >> again, look at what the president wants. as you know, that is the rate of the budget. the president made clear yesterday that he's open to new ideas, but i think we have to be clear when we look at this problem that the u.s. can't afford tax cut that were passed over 10 years ago and feel that the most fair way to address a revenue shortfall is by raising revenue from the very top. >> display driver and if you would right now if roughly

$16 trillion of total federal debt not counting fannie mae and freddie mac. under both cincinnatus project to another 10 trillion over the next 10 years roughly. so you have 10 plus 16. even if you had to bowles/simpson added to the 16 trillion, why is it okay to 20 shoe trillion of debt? why is that still considered a good thing to do? >> not specifically -- but the much larger economy 10 years from now. what is important is to meet our financing needs in the best metrics our capacity to do that is the that is the size of the debt relative to economy. what the president has proposed in bowles/simpson is to put on a task that the debt is stabilized or coming down relative to gdp. >> so roughly 100% of gdp. you think our economy can't

sustain 100% gdp that i seem to do. >> asked to explain a little about the numbers. this feature you mention include debt and so that's not an appropriate way -- it's a measure of debt, but not a measure of debt that is most relevant. but its most economically relevant is that out to the public. which is closer to 12 and were talking about being on a path of 76% of gdp. >> and employment rate became an issue in the campaign. the unemployment rate went down below 8%, went on a 7.7.9. some people said the numbers have been played with it some people. can you assure people that nothing can happen on the unemployment rate?

>> are truly absurd. i watched the bureau of labor statistics for a long time. i worked in the mid-90s and chief economist at the labor department for interactive. the unemployment rate is assembled by career employees dedicated to their craft. these the same methods of a period of years. they are insulated from the politics and inform us after they've calculated that. at the moment there's no political appointee. at the moment there's not a confirmed commissioner. so the entire enterprise, which is probably the most expect to in the world is among the most in the vision the world is beyond approach when it comes to integrity of the data.

>> if they call you the day before to give you numbers so at least you know what they're going to be before they are announced? >> the long-standing procedure is that they share the own claimant report says the afternoon before its release. the office budget and management set of procedures in the 1970s which govern how we transmit that to the president and that's the procedures they follow another administrations follow. >> 's the president doesn't say can you lower it a little bit more? >> the president has never said that. >> we measure unemployment by people looking for jobs in the last four weeks more or less. why is that the appropriate measure the unemployment rate? thump with the same people who think jobs to stop looking and would be 14.5% come in something

like. can you explain why we do it this way? to other countries do it this way? >> that's an excellent question. we start in the 1940s to measure the unemployment rate. to be unemployed by the definition used for decades, three conditions need to be met. so many spewed without a job in the reference week at the ♪ developer to find a job were active efforts means they took some action that could have resulted them getting a job offer is supposed to just reading help-wanted, they need to go on a job interview and someone. number three, they need to be available for work. it may be the case someone is searching for a job but because of other obligations would not work. at the same that mission most of the countries use. there is international agreements to harmonize the baby is unemployment.

in the u.s. from the start teen 80s, we have added a broader set of measures of labor underutilization, which include people who have given up looking for jobs because they don't think one is available, includes people working part time but would a full-time job and haven't been able to find a full-time job. we have a whole suite of measures. the official unemployment rate i think it's economically quite meaningful if we look at the relationship between a host of other variables in the unemployment rate. we find pretty stable relationships. moreover, if we look at people -- people's behavior, the way economists like to judge measures, we find people who have searched for a job in the last for weeks are a lot more likely to make a transition to finding a job than people who say they would like a job but

haven't looked in the last year. but these are economically meaningful measures. we have a whole suite people can look at a variety of these measures and import money, the unemployment rate has come down. woodpecker to come down more and the president has reposed actions to bring that down further. but they're all thinking the same picture of an economy slowly hearing. >> only two years after the recession is over, this is officially a virtue 2009 from the unemployment rate has gone back to where it was before the recession. why in this recession has not gone anywhere close to the pre-recession novel? >> this is a very different recession. this is a recession that this are a tremendous amount of wealth, that disrupted the financial system and research has found that financial crises tend to be too deeper recessions, particular crises that affect the housing market,

which is where most americans have the largest amount of wealth and are slower to recover him in the hole is deeper. within the unemployment rate come down two points from the peak. we want to keep working on that progress. that's why the president has proposed in his budget funds to invest more in infrastructure, to help state and local governments and keep teachers on the payroll and other actions that help the economy in the short run while we address the longer-term fiscal problems. >> one year from today, what with the unemployment repeat? >> i have to give you the following answer. we make rejections twice a year and we are in the process right now of finalizing our projections for the budget, which just to tell you about the background, the council of economic advisers together with the treasury department, office of management and budget during

the forecasting group. one needs to a forecast of the future path of the economy for the budget as part of the budget process, we made forecast that we update them in the summer. i'm not going to front runner budget. >> detained with the more likely to be lower? i said i would be lower. >> i think if we take the action the president has been calling for, unemployment rates will be lower and they think the right economic path is pretty clear. as with the president has called for in terms of addressing our fiscal problems, protecting the middle class. the senate passed an extension of a class tax cut. that could take a good deal of the concern and anxiety with a fiscal cliff right at the table

at the house of representatives were to do with the senate did pass that bill. also continue to support the economy in the short run. i'm quite confident you will see continued -- >> whenever to college, textbooks he said zero employment in the united states is 4% or 5%. what do you consider today full unemployment? >> if you look at sort of the out years when we think the economy has recovered from this very deep crisis that began at the end of 2007, we have the unemployment rate in the 5% range and there's a lot of factors that affect the natural rate of unemployment, some having to do with the demographic structure of the population. if you have some sense of what we see the steady state unemployment rate is, look at the budget. >> now, you give advice to economic affairs. how do you advise -- how would

you would you rate his economic? t. think he picks up everything about the economy you to know? >> first of all, no appraiser goes into details about pricing. josé has been a great honor to work with president obama. i did expect that i would return to washington. it's only because of the tremendous respect i have for the president and what he's trying to accomplish that i did agree to come back after having served at the treasury for two years. in a way similar to the experience i had a treasury to work with someone who could do your job better than you. that's the experience i've had. >> when you're a princeton, was ben bernanke barisal? >> and then i like to point out before he was chairman of the fed, even before he was chairman of the princeton economics department come he was chairman

of my tenure review committee. last night the >> so you have a very high regard. >> man has wonderful judgment. >> to expect to come back to prince to an intensive? >> i can't comment on his plans. >> he held his position and arthur burns held his position and alan greenspan help this position you now hold and they'll were not to be chairman of the federal reserve. do you have any interest in being chairman of the federal reserve? >> my interest to see the economy recover the best it can. it's been a wonderful opportunity for me to say the president comes to the country in this capacity. there really is some ensure all chairman of the count up to the site a tremendous opportunity to use streaming to be in a position to provide object of advice to the president, which is what he asked for.

somatostatin to politics and give them the unvarnished object of advice the economics profession can provide tiered >> the president has said he would like to protect middle-class, but the middle class would be much lower than the $250,000 number. explain to me what the middle-class protects them, the 250 as 2% of the population. the middle class would be something like $70,000 for a family of four. when a decrease or get rid of tax cuts for people with incomes of 100,000 because they're presented the middle-class are about the class. >> there's lots of different definitions of the middle class and for analytical purposes many are very useful. one way of thinking about this issue is we've had an opportunity gap in this country and that goes back more than one decade, where people who were not born to fortunate circumstances have much greater challenges moving upwards in the american economy. that is taking place for a number of reasons related to

take allergy, related to globalization. what i think is important about our proposals is that by asking the top 2% to pay more, that will provide more opportunity or others to have the same types of chances they had. so for example, what will the revenue be used for? is going to be used to help keep students on rates low. it will be used provide some education, science, to elegy, not mondex, engineering or more individuals to have the kinds of opportunities that have made it possible for so many americans to drive. if you look at what's happened to the distribution of income in the u.s. over the last years, we've seen the top pole away. it's wonderful that don't do well. what is important as we pursue policies that reduce the

opportunity to provide more opportunity for those in the lower and middle in families. >> to think tenure someday the budget deficit is likely to be under $500 billion a year? what to project the budget deficit would be? producing it realistically will be? >> what i would like to see us for the president's fiscal path to be enacted. so again i will refer you in the audience to the presidents budget. the president inherited an economy with the deficit was exploding, where policies in the previous administration would cause the deficit to rise even more. on top of that, the rate recession reduced revenue and required additional spending to help families through these difficult times. for all of that was the starting position. what i would like to see over the next 10 years is for us to

make the kinds of efforts that will put us in a place where we are on a sustainable path toward the debt is not growing, was manageable and not crowding out private sector best and come with a private sector is closer to full employment. >> so do you think the dollar is in reasonably good shape and do expect the dollar to appreciate against the euro for the r&b over the next year or so? >> this will reveal i spent two years at the treasury. it makes a lot of sense to leave the treasury secretary on value of the dollar. [laughter] ..

>> in a number of respects to do research where we have a body of principles that are largely untested to do empirical analysis where the

standard model does well or pass to change. >> were your parents disappointed when you told them you would not be a lawyer? [laughter] >> no. let me add i wanted to be a lawyer to help people and you think of a major court cases to provide for children to go to school like brown the board of education for example, i thought economics was the same field it made me think deeply of the solution. >> what was larry summers like. [laughter] >> he was a wonderful advisor.

i was very fortunate in my education he happen to return to harvard then public finance and wrote to graduate papers i remember he said it is just as much work to write a

. >> as i mentioned earlier as

well, and a skills gap, a historical negative up. we have longstanding differences by rates in the u.s. and by age. there are vast differences. >> my generation, the baby-boomers lost their jobs so the labor force is smaller. is said to why it is not higher? can you explain that? >> the labor force participation rate peaked in 2000 we have had many crosscurrents affecting the share of the population and on the one hand the

participation rate has been declining for over 30 years. for women it peaked and has been gradually coming down since then. was boosting the rate was would then. then the last group because school enrollment has risen and along run i think that is a healthy development to have the better educated work force with your question of the job a good chunk is past trends because of demographics. if you look at the drop of the unemployment rate it has come down from 8.9% down 1/7

point* nine that as a result of more people finding work. what we want to do is pursue the actions to bring about the improvement. >> host: months the if we have questions. stand up and identify yourself. >> >> david bassett question if the president understood economics if the understands and come and wealth. the district of columbia at cops make over 110,000 per year and a bad teacher can make $145,000. they make more than two did 50,000 do they think they are wealthy?

>> i am not entirely sure your salary numbers are right but if you look at the u.s. over the last three years we have had a pulling apart of income distribution. the top 2 percent has done quite well and also under the clinton years when there taxes rose. the president's economic strategy has been to pursue a balanced approach to address the fiscal problems but it does that by asking all americans to make contributions. spending cuts will fall on

middle-class families the cuts will fall of the top 2% and 98% of americans and 97% notes small-business is will not be affected in the changes the president has called for and will not be affected and what way to address problems quickly is for that bill to pass through the house. >> the qwest tsin is a few list into what president clinton said overt secretary rate to said that the same version of for the long term sustainability we have to

fix the deficit. clinton said that this get the deal to make it ironclad but delay its one-year or two. right now we a continuation of simulation. but do you agree with the conversation to have a grand bargain in to defect right away? o.r. do you agree so as some people. >> my job is economic policy adviser. as an economist, the right strategy is to get our

hasselhoff's and order. and to show that we can do those commitments will require additional revenue along with cuts. we want to help in the short term. the president proposed tax cut is to help in the short run. good group with the lowest marginal propensity consumed and the cbo released report which concluded extending the middle-class tax cut would create one point* 6 billion jobs compared to allowing them to expire. that mrs. the fact if you take revenue if you use that to hire more schoolteachers

or provide unemployment benefits to those who are unemployed will create additional jobs. that is the best way to support the economy in the short-term. because they will benefit and the economy will benefit in the future from that investment. >> could you talk about social security and in the pork barrel programs and medicare? i think this is a part of the solution, so a overlooked. >> do you meet entitlements? >> 30 words or less. [laughter]

but what we learned is there is a revelation that the president had 1.6 trillion dollars of additional revenue it also had some pretty serious reforms would is the driver of the long-term budget deficit. he said he is open to new ideas and creative solutions. >> we have time for one more question. >> i have a question about the tax cuts and but the rest of the government to and accommodating the

cost-of-living. why can't the taxpayer? >> the tax code accommodates the cost of living because 250,000 would be vastly different in toledo than washington. >> so the difference standard for different parts of the country? and the answer? >> i have not thought about that before. seven permissions are indexed to the people moving across the regions i think it would be difficult to a minister that type of a tax code. we're open to innovative

solutions. what about low they'll live longer? [laughter] >> with the estate tax? of i want to give you a gift on our behalf. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. and how with everyboby? a great day to put in base to be in the neighborhood. we are putting out a report the department of everything. there is a little problem with the republican conference it is okay to cut spending anywhere but the defense department and have

integrity on the issue. so we have done has nothing to do with the fans. over 10 years and that is a conservative estimate. at the end of world war ii we had to go home million men and 2,005 offset -- officers and generals. today there is 1,000 and 1.2 million. the ratio is out of whack. now will will have an admiral for every ship in the navy. not a captain. admiral. what we have done is look at areas not save all the money

but transfer responsibilities that are not with the defense of the country i think we highlight the then for the individual saying. >> we have military run the schools. of the average cost is $50,000 per year. almost and the vast majority reuse public-school spark a we could pay every district 14,000 per child and save

billions of dollars per year with the same or better outcome. here is one area we could save billions of dollars by doing what we do. chest to the plaintiff is there are lots of errands errands -- areas that have nothing to do with the fence and cut the pentagon budget. nothing to do with the rest of the areas we think we can save in the pentagon with procurement nations and we will go over. >> is there a clash but with

recruiting? >> i don't think so at all. people don't join the army because there is a school on base. you crude for them to save money on their groceries and there is no difference but what we have not ben is specific and go back is our country in trouble economically? yes. the generals toss it is our debt. not a kriet or the middle east. everything has to be on the table as well as their rate -- every area of the

government to do things much more efficient and probably better if we would take a look at some of these areas. >> would you give the olive branch that republicans are taught willing to talk now? we need to talk about their just has not been the desire to increase spending so if we did not get that to come with that is where we are. out of the $600 billion budget, could you imagine with the efficiency and

common-sense we could set -- save 7% of that? absolutely. and then those you could cut 10 percent out of their abilities. >> why are we not taking those ideas? >> i put forward people want to know where their money goes back of you cannot manage it, then we need to do a lot of work. i am a budget and military hawk per car want to but

look at procurement and we have a lot less than with a lot more. it comes out with the weapon system and contract which is broken in. >> because they have a blind eye. >> what do do to make the report have traction? >> i am trying to have a press conference to get you guys to read it. i will take any criticism of what we have done. i was not pleased with that one year-ago but every politician has the blind area.

but then not to use to rise -- incentivize the project. republicans have a blind eye as a group but others have spending for from that is not normal times. >> we still have not seen a work product and what happened to the gang of eight? is up to the president and congressional leadership this will not do it? >> i don't make comments

with our discussions with the king of eight but to there is eight well-meaning individuals and show you how hard it is. and positions have been firm to the. >> also entitlement reform? >> remind you the size of the government to twice the size from 11 years ago. i don't know if we're getting the benefit. >> i look to the different

areas of spending and how much build up how much diss when do day vs. congress. >> congress is a failure when it comes to oversight. the need that we are a failure to write legislation because we give way to much authority and judgment to the bureaucracy. because we don't know what we are talking about. we aeronaut to speed from when religious late.